OK -- I've given PodCastle a few weeks now to find its legs, and will be giving it more; it took awhile for Escape Pod to hook me too. (Not Pseudopod, but that's because I missed the first 10-15 weeks and just happened to pick an incredibly scary story for my first exposure.) But I've been increasingly frustrated by PC, and since I'm a psychologist that sends me into self-assessment mode. Sharing my thoughts here in the hopes that Rachel and the other PC editors may find it useful. Please note that these are not necessarily critiques; they're more observations on what might be causing this weird reaction in me. (And it is weird, because I am an intense fantasyphile and have been eagerly awaiting PC; I shouldn't be this frustrated.) Some of the weirdness stems from me bringing my own baggage to the table; some is nitpicky unimportant bits that I'll probably just get used to eventually; some consists of things that I think are just part of starting up a new magazine; and some are things that I hope the editors will consider changing, especially if they get other feedback along these lines.
1) It's not Escape Pod. Took me awhile to realize that this is what I was "missing", but it has to be said: I'd expected PC to be an all-fantasy version of EP, and it's not. This is not necessarily a bad thing. But it's one of the reasons for my frustration -- I expected something different from what I'm getting. This is why I find myself comparing Rachel's intros to Steve's, for example, which I simply shouldn't be doing because they're not different issues of the same magazine, they're different magazines. (Note: I did this with Pseudopod too. But I'm not all that interested in horror and I had to push myself to try PP, which is why it took me 10-15 weeks to hook into it. I think that with PC, I feel more of a vested interest. I want to like this podcast so bad. So I care more.) I'll just keep repeating to myself that "it's not EP", and I think that will sink in eventually. =)
2) That said: the intros. I'm not fond of intros in general; I almost always skip over authors' forewards, coming back to them only after I've read the story (if at all). When I do read them, I prefer an "editorial" style intro (on genre issues, current events in relation to fantasy, personal experiences related to fantasy, whatever) to the ones I've heard on PC, which either gush about how much the editor(s) loved the story or talk about the story itself. I don't need you to say that you loved the story; you bought it, which pretty much says all I need to know. This doesn't bug me, though.
What does is this: please please please for the love of the gods stop "explaining" the stories beforehand! I just listened to "Pahwahke" and was actively annoyed by the lengthy lecture on American history, culture-specific interpretation of events and human actions, and the story's inspiration/origins. I have always preferred to discover a story's content, style, and visible/hidden themes for myself; this intro pretty much spoiled that experience for me. There was also the didactic way in which the lecture was delivered. There are sometimes good reasons to do this -- like for teaching purposes, when you're dealing with an audience which isn't familiar with the material or the ways in which it can be interpreted. For a story that doesn't derive from the Western canon, and an audience that's mostly (assuming it mimics the usual demographics of the English-language fantasy community) white and of European descent and probably not too familiar with Pacific Northwest Native American/Canadian folklore, I can see why it might be a good idea to explain some things. But I think this kind of explanation would have far greater impact if it was done after the story, when the lecture serves to illuminate by providing context. Coming before the story as it does, the lecture imposes boundaries on the story, forcing the listener towards a single interpretation that they might not have otherwise come up with on their own. I can't speak for anyone else, but this makes me feel like I'm back in high school English class, being told the "right" way to interpret a given work so that I can pass the AP exam at the end of the year.
If you folks must continue to deliver this info before the story, please start off the podcast by giving the minute/second mark where the story begins, so that those of us (like me!) who generally prefer to skip intros can do so.
3) The music. Dear gods, how I hate it. The first time I heard it, I thought, "Xena!" Which would be great, except I hated Xena. (Well, OK, "hated" is too strong. It had its moments, especially early on. Then it got stupid... but I digress.) However, I'm not tuning in for the music, so this is no big deal.
4) Rachel. Please note that this is not a personal attack. But it's something I've specifically noted with her, so I'll just say it: I don't like the way she sounds. Too "airy" and distant, as if she's speaking in a large empty room, sitting far away from the microphone. Too stilted and formal, as if she's reading off a cue card. I'm not good at articulating this. But the bottom line is that it's hard to tell if she cares about this stuff. I know she does. No one spends months working on something if they're apathetic about it. But it just doesn't sound like she does. The decision to treat the intros as informational as opposed to editorial feeds into this; between the lecturing tone and the distant formality, she feels like a professor studying fantasy, not a fan sharing love with fellow fans.
I wrestled a lot with whether to say this, because I like Rachel (hi Mandolin!). But it does affect my enjoyment of the podcast, because I prefer podcasts that have a "fannish" feel. I'm also saying it because I think it's probably fixable, but in order to fix it you need to know that the problem exists. There has to be a way to fix the "airyness" through sound editing, or maybe a better microphone or something. She'll probably get more comfy doing intros with practice, which might fix the stiltedness. And I've already offered a suggestion about the content -- maybe if she unleashes her inner fangirl, that might help. =)
5) The content. Much as I like "Come Lady Death" as a story, I'd read it before, so I wasn't really happy with your choice to lead with such a well-known tale for several reasons. First, the lead story sets the tone of the whole magazine, IMO, and by choosing a story that was widely-known and much beloved, by an established author, struck me immediately as a "safe" decision. And all the stories since, with the possible exception of "Run of the Fiery Horse" (which had some sexual content) have been almost painfully "safe", even tame.
This is a personal taste issue, but I don't like "safe" fantasy. There's too much of that readily available in all the usual places -- Realms, F&SF, etc. Whenever a new fantasy magazine comes online I yearn for it to be different in some way. I know that PC has to balance this carefully; you've got to try and appeal equally to an audience of formulaic doorstopper-lovers as well as slipstream stylophiles. But I'm desperately hoping to see PC stories in the future that contain more daring content. Note: I love the consistent inclusion of well-drawn, multidimensional female characters. Thank you; it's a relief to see, and one step in the right direction. But I want more. I want stories that make me gasp, or cry, or blush, or salivate, or recoil in disgust. I want to read something that makes me angry, not because it's a bad story but because it's just that good. We've had 6 weeks of G and PG stories now; I think it's time for an R or an X. (Disclosure: I have a story in the PC slushpile that's probably X-rated. I don't care whether you publish mine, so long as you publish someone's.) Toss us some genrebenders that ignite raging "this isn't fantasy, it's got a spaceship in it!" flamewars on the forum. And so on.
So going forward, I'll just say: please consider being more provocative.
All this said -- I'm 90% happy with PC thus far. It's clearly got a good crew of people behind it, and I've enjoyed some of the stories that have run (favorite was "Run of the Fiery Horse"; I liked "Come Lady Death" already). I just want it to be better. Please take these comments in that spirit.